Bermudez, A. (2014). Integrating Cognitive and Discursive Approaches in the Analysis of Critical...

©2014 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SAGE Research Methods

1

SAGE Research Methods Cases Integrating Cognitive and Discursive Approaches in the Analysis of Critical Reflection within Relational and Sociocultural Contexts Contributors: Angela Bermudez Book Title: SAGE Research Methods Cases Chapter Title: "Integrating Cognitive and Discursive Approaches in the Analysis of Critical Reflection within Relational and Sociocultural Contexts" Pub. Date: 20140512 Access Date: November 10, 2014 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Ltd. City: London


2

Print ISBN: Online ISBN: 9781446273050 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014533946 ©2014 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/methods-case-studies-2013/n406.xml?rskey=KJCnG6&row=1&hidePageNum&print


3

Author’s name: Angela Bermudez Velez. Affiliation: Researcher. Center for Applied Ethics. Deusto University. Bilbao, Spain. Metadata

Contributor’s biography: Angela Bermudez is a researcher at the Center for Applied Ethics in Deusto University (Bilbao, Spain). She holds a doctorate from the Harvard Graduate School of Education (2008), where she conducted her dissertation on youth engagement in socio-political controversies, building upon educational resources and datasets developed by Facing History and Ourselves (FHAO)1. Her current research investigates pedagogical processes that foster a sustainable culture of peace, and support individuals and communities in engaging in nonviolent management of conflict. Her main project, funded by a Marie Curie Grant (European Union) and by the Spencer Foundation (USA), consists of a comparative study of the ways in which history education in Colombia, United States and Spain contributes (or not) to develop a critical understanding of political violence. She uses a qualitative methodology that integrates cognitive and discursive approaches to the analysis of people’s representations, critical understanding and discussion of social issues. Relevant disciplines: Psychology, Education, Peace Studies. Academic level: Advanced Undergraduate, Postgraduate. Link to the research output: n/a Methods used: Qualitative analysis, cognitive analysis, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, positioning, rhetoric, theory-driven coding, thematic coding. Keywords: Critical thinking, critical reflection, critical inquiry, controversy, sociocultural context, narrative, identity, bullying, cognitive analysis, discourse analysis, positioning, rhetoric.

Abstract: This methods-in-action case presents a qualitative methodology for the analysis of people’s understanding and discussion of interpersonal and social controversial issues. The author considers the possibilities and challenges of integrating cognitive and discursive lenses in order to account for two components that determine critical inquiry and controversy: The intellectual quality of individuals’ reflection, and the shaping force of cultural narratives and social context. An analytic counterpoint between these approaches is proposed and demonstrated through the analysis of one adolescent girl’s reflection about her involvement in a bullying incident in her school. The proposed methodology can be used more widely in the analysis of individual and collective engagement in critical reflection and the discussion of controversial issues.

1 FHAO is an organization dedicated to curriculum development and teacher education that fosters critical


4

Introduction

Teaching youth to partake in critical reflection, inquiry and dialog is a central purpose in the work of many educators. It is fundamental that young people learn to engage in purposeful and rigorous exploration about significant issues in their intellectual, social and personal lives, and to discuss them with others to improve understanding and address conflict in civil ways. Research shows that school-based experience of open discussion of controversial issues is a significant predictor of civic and democratic outcomes (Hess, 2009). However, discussion is rare in the classroom and is usually of low quality. Teachers and researchers highlight that students tend to vent their opinions with passion but with little thorough analysis, and quickly dismiss unfamiliar perspectives. It is therefore important to understand the processes involved in critical inquiry, its obstacles and opportunities, and the most effective strategies to address them. Critical inquiry and discussion require both skillful thinking for people to develop a sophisticated understanding of social issues, and productive negotiation of meaning in order to tend bridges across divides. However, a research challenge arises because these two processes have been investigated from divergent theoretical traditions, often regarded as incompatible. The development of critical thinking capacity has been typically studied from cognitive and constructivist perspectives in psychology and pedagogy. In turn, the negotiation of meaning has been typically studied from sociocultural and discursive perspectives. Yet, critical inquiry and controversy cannot be adequately explained from only one of these perspectives, but their integration is not easy. I met this challenge while conducting my doctoral research on youth discussion of controversial issues. Initially, I adopted a cognitive perspective that I had used in earlier work. However, I encountered a puzzle that was bigger than what this theoretical lens could handle. This paper discusses how I dealt with this challenge, developing a dual-lens-counterpoint analytic procedure. I hope this case helps to shed light on the challenge of integrating cognitive and discursive lenses, and of doing it in ways that respect the integrity of each perspective while bringing together their findings.

Research Context

I demonstrate these methods-in-action drawing upon my study of The Ostracism Incident, the story of a group of girls involved in a long grim incident of bullying in an urban middle school in the USA. This incident was documented by Facing History and Ourselves (FHAO) and later developed into a pedagogical resource2. Following is a summary of the incident,

2 http://ostracism.facinghistory.org/Story


5

In December of 1995 Sue and Rhonda3 considered each other best

friends. They belonged to a popular group of girls in the 7th grade. One day, Sue wrote a note to Ronda saying that she thought their friend Jill was “stupid to break up with her boyfriend.” Also in the note, Sue asked Rhonda to keep the note private because she had not yet told Jill that she felt that way. Rhonda decided to tell Jill what Sue had written anyway. Jill confronted Sue and they argued in front of many peers. Their fight snowballed, and many students joined together against Sue. Rhonda, Tina and Patti sided with Jill, and influenced other girls to do the same. For over a year, they excluded Sue from their group, teased her, spread rumors, and wrote hurtful letters to her. Sue went from being a strong student to getting poor grades, not wanting to go to school, and seriously considering suicide4.

Researchers from FHAO interviewed seven girls involved in the incident in 1996 and followed up with two more interviews in 1997 and 2001. Each time the girls reflected about the Ostracism Incident, and about other social and historical issues addressed in the FHAO curriculum. When I analyzed these data I was fascinated by the very different explanations that the girls gave of the incident and their own participation in it. I proposed to investigate the role that critical reflection played in their understanding of conflict and responsibility. Rhonda intrigued me more than any of the girls because, even though she had actively harassed Sue, she felt proud of her behavior. When first interviewed, she placed all the blame on Sue and didn’t doubt the rightfulness of her actions. Rhonda’s view changed significantly over time, becoming progressively aware of her responsibility in hurting Sue.

Cognitive Approach

The cognitive approach to the analysis of critical inquiry and discussion draws upon the traditions in cognitive psychology and constructivist pedagogy originally inspired in the work of Jean Piaget (Schwandt, 2007). These traditions consider that the individual is an active and increasingly autonomous agent in the processes of knowledge construction, reflection, and understanding. They define knowledge and meaning-making as mental processes that occur “inside the individual”, and consist of a progressive reconstruction of concepts, values and skills from more simplistic to more complex organizations (Kegan, 1982; Perkins, 1995; Selman, 2003). The cognitive analysis I employed emphasizes three specific assumptions: o As individuals engage in thinking and build reflective practice, they construct a variety

of intellectual tools (concepts and procedures), and develop their capacity to use them in increasingly sophisticated ways.

3 All names are pseudonyms. 4 Based on Barr, (1998)


6

o Concepts and thinking procedures that are more complex allow individuals to produce better explanations, and therefore, generate a more sophisticated understanding of social issues and conflict.

o In the analysis of peoples’ understanding and discussion of social issues, the researcher focuses on the intellectual quality of their critical reflection and inquiry process, and therefore must look for signs of developing complexity.

Drawing upon these theoretical assumptions, I first approached the interviews with the girls involved in the Ostracism Incident with the following question in mind: v How does the girls’ capacity for critical reflection define the quality of their

understanding of the Ostracism Incident and their sense of responsibility in it? Developing these assumptions, and based on an extensive review of scholarship on critical thinking, I defined four analytic categories. Each one represents a particular tool of critical inquiry that individuals may use when examining and discussing social issues: Problem Posing (PP), Reflective Skepticism (SK), Multi-perspectivity (MP), and Systemic Thinking (SYS). A skillful use of these tools affords an understand of social issues that is grounded on relevant and significant questions and connections (PP), assesses the validity of supporting evidence and arguments (SK), recognizes and integrates divergent and discrepant perspectives (MP), and locates events and conflicts within wider social systems and ongoing processes (SYS). Figure 1 illustrates this tool-based process of critical inquiry in the social domain.


7

Based upon these categories, I generated a qualitative theory-driven coding rubric (Saldaña, 2009) for the analysis of accounts, explanations and arguments offered by individuals when reflecting about or discussing an issue. Table 1 describes the indicators that one may find in data signaling that an individual used these tools. It also describes the general direction of transformation towards a more sophisticated use. These progression paths help to identify varying levels of complexity displayed by different individuals at one same time (cross-sectional analysis), as well as increasing complexity displayed by one same individual over time (longitudinal analysis). I first coded the interviews from time 1(1996) identifying excerpts that revealed how each girl used these tools to construct their initial account of the Ostracism Incident. The results for each girl were contrasted through cross-case comparisons that exposed the varying levels of complexity of their explanations (cross-sectional analysis). Next, I focused on Rhonda and Patti’s interviews at times 2 (1997) and 3 (2001), using the coding rubric to identify if their explanations gained complexity over time. These results were contrasted through “within-case comparisons” with the critical complexity demonstrated in time 1(longitudinal analysis)5.

5 This paper refers only to Rhonda’s data.


8

Table 1. Critical Inquiry Tools - Coding Rubric C. I. TOOLS

INDICATORS OF TOOL USE Accounts, explanations and arguments:

PROGRESSION Sophistication of mastery in tool use

Problem Posing [PP]

ü Raise questions about matters of truth and justice in knowledge and relationships

ü Pose significant connections between self-society, past-present, knowledge-practice, or between disciplines

ü Draw upon moral emotions to signal concern and call attention

ü Tone: Sensitive, alert and sharp/incisive.

Ø Few/lame > many/sharp questions, issues and connections

Ø Unaware > reflective about own values and emotions regarding issues at stake

Ø Disaffection > engagement with the significance and purpose of knowledge.

Reflective Skepticism [SK]

ü Disclose doubts and embrace uncertainty ü Interrogate beliefs, claims and existing

knowledge, even if sanctioned by authority, tradition or habit

ü Assess the validity of supporting evidence and arguments

ü Handle doubt and disagreement in disciplined ways (follow consistent criteria and procedures, care for rigor…)

ü Propose careful interpretations, thoughtful opinions and tentative claims

ü Tone: Puzzled and rigorous

Ø Quick > slow to believe and judge Ø Stays shallow > goes beyond the

evident Ø Passive > active regarding views

imposed by tradition, dominant groups, or habit

Ø Haphazard > systematic procedures of inquiry

Ø Implicit/inconsistent > explicit/consistent standards.

Ø Naïve > aware of interpretative nature of knowledge and meaning

Ø Matter of fact > invites interrogation & interpretation

Multi-perspectivity [MP]

ü Identify relevant divergent or discrepant perspectives

ü Reconstruct perspectives within their context of meaning

ü Coordinate different perspectives (identify consensus, points of disagreement, inclusive solutions, alternative options…)

ü Tone: Pluralist and fair-minded

Ø Unaware > reflective about own/other perspectives

Ø Self-centered > steps back from personal/group positions

Ø Non-empathetic > empathetic Ø Disaggregated (or relativist) >

coordinated judgment.

Systemic Thinking [SYS]

ü Locate events, actions and conflicts within wider social systems and ongoing processes of change and continuity.

ü Differentiate and connect political, economic, psychological, cultural dimensions

ü Identify and coordinate multiple causes and consequences.

ü Integrate individual and collective agency with structural causal forces.

ü Distinguish intended and unintended consequences.

ü Tone: Nuanced, comprehensive and holistic.

Ø Narrow >>> wide-ranging scope (temporal/spatial)

Ø Focus on personal motives/traits >>> integrates with multiple causal factors

Ø Linear/unidirectional >>> networked/multidirectional connections

Ø Flat >>> layered and nested explanations

Ø Focus on discrete facts/actions >>> reveals underlying social structures and patterns

Ø Recognizes individual/direct > societal/indirect responsibility.


9

Cognitive Findings Following is a narrative summary of Rhonda’s initial account of the incident:

Sue said some stuff to me about my best friend, and, she was my best friend at the time [too], but she went behind. She was talking about people behind their backs. Sue and Jill were, like really good friends, and Sue was, like helping her break up with [Tom], but then she wrote me a letter saying that Jill was ignorant to break up with him. Sue said in the letter “don’t show this to anybody,” but I felt obligated to show it to Jill. It wasn’t, like, right for Sue to do something like that.

Then, Sue got mad at me, and Jill and Tina got mad at Sue, and Sue got mad at Jill and Tina and, like, it all happened around that. All these people started taking sides. The teachers took Sue’s side because they thought we was being, like, really mean to Sue, … Sue never seemed to tell them what she did to us. …She could have …not make people think that she was, like, the ‘good one’ and we was like the ‘bad one’. She should have, like, told both sides of the story. And, the teachers never heard our side.” … We was always gettin’ yelled at.

I still don’t talk to [Sue] now, cause I don’t like to forgive and forget…. I feel I acted pretty well considering what she did.

Rhonda claimed that Sue had violated their trust and that Jill deserved to know what her “friend” was saying behind her back despite pretending to support her. Yet, as shown in Table 2, her initial account of the incident reveals a simplistic use of the critical inquiry tools. Her complaint about teachers’ bias reveals a basic awareness of competing views. However, Rhonda never considered Sue’s hurt or perspective (MP). Furthermore, while she questioned the teachers’ and Sue’s judgment, she didn’t question her own, nor the incongruence of questioning Sue for exactly the same thing she was doing: telling the story exclusively from her viewpoint (SK). Also, Rhonda attributed the escalation of the incident solely to the personal motives of the girls, not recognizing her own influence and leadership, thus obscuring the power dynamics at play (SYS). The proximity of the incident and Rhonda’s own emotional involvement explains in part the difficulty she must have experienced in questioning her role in the incident. However, other girls, equally involved did offer a more self-critical account. From a cognitive perspective, Rhonda’s simplistic use of the critical inquiry tools offers an important clue to understand her lacking sense of responsibility for hurting Sue. Confirming this, the subsequent interviews showed a clear improvement in multi-perspectivity and systemic thinking, which happened in parallel with a growing acknowledgement of the hurt she inflicted, the expression of regret, and the consideration of alternative solutions (See Table 2).


10

Table 2. Rhonda’s Use of Critical Inquiry Tools Across Time RESPONSIBILITY

MULTIPERSPECTIVITY SYSTEMIC THINKING

What responsibility does Rhonda take?

What perspectives does she take into account?

What elements of the social system does she bring to bear in her account?

INT. 1: 1996-fall

“I still don’t talk to her now, ‘cause I don’t like to forgive and forget”. "I feel I acted pretty well considering what she did". “I felt obligated to show it to her because it wasn’t, like, right for Sue to do something like that.” Î No responsibility for

hurting Sue.

Perspectives taken: ü Her own moral values

(outspokenness & authenticity).

ü Her disapproval of Sue’s action and behavior.

ü Her sense of moral obligation to confront Sue.

ü Jill’s dislike of having a friend talk about her life behind her back.

Not taken: × Sue’s reasons to pass

Rhonda the note about Jill, and to ask her not to show it to anybody.

× Sue’s experience of hurt.

Limited systemic reconstruction: Explanation of actions reduced to the will of actors, removed from systemic ecology.

INT. 2: 1997-spring

“I felt that I should have taken upon myself to tell somebody else. “ “I regret it now, but at the time, I felt like really thinking about it.” “Well, I treated Sue really, really bad. And I don’t think it’s right now” ü Responsibility for

hurting Sue

Perspectives taken:

[INT. 1] + ü Sue’s experience of hurt. ü Other girls’ fear of being

ostracized. Not taken: Î Sue’s reasons to pass

the note to Rhonda.

More complex reconstruction. ü Incident located within the relational system of the peer group and its dynamics of belonging, fear, peer pressure and power. ü Other girls influenced to align against Sue, independently of Sue’s actions.

INT 3: 2001-spring

I feel really bad about it now… I don’t know…That was a really mean thing to do. [Today] I wouldn't try to, like, make her the laughing stock of the school… That was so bad!. ü More explicit

responsibility for hurting Sue.

Perspectives taken:

[INT. 1&2] + ü Other girls finding her an

intimidating leader. ü Her own dislike of being

put in the middle ü Sue’s experience when

turned into the laughing stock of school

Not taken: ü Sue’s reasons to pass note.

Even more complex reconstruction: [INT. 1 & 2] + ü Location of Rhonda’s action and position in the peer group > acknowledgment that she influenced other girls to ostracize Sue.


11

While my cognitive interpretation of Rhonda’s view of the Ostracism Incident seemed reasonable, something did not fit well. Other sections of the interviews in which Rhonda reflected about school and society showed a more complex use of the critical inquiry tools. Already in early 8th grade, Rhonda was articulate about issues of discrimination and prejudice, as the excerpts below illustrate. She was surprisingly aware of stereotypes, skeptical of social conventions, questioned what for many remained invisible, and challenged what others saw as unquestionable truths or fair social arrangements.

[This school…] It’s okay, but they have a lot of stereotypes; if you wear like one of your pants legs up, you’re in a gang, or if you have a pager, you’re a drug dealer, if you have on a bandana, you’re part of a gang.

Well, I don’t know if you would call this discrimination, but like my social studies teacher, … he doesn’t teach anything on black history. And like when he teaches about black people, he always teaches about slavery and stuff like that, I think he should teach more about … the good things.

What puzzled me was the contrast between the sophistication of Rhonda’s critical reflection when she questioned the social world around her, and the simplicity with which she reflected about her own involvement in the conflict. Further analysis evidenced that Rhonda had the capacity to use the critical inquiry tools in more sophisticated ways that she did not use when first reflecting about the Ostracism Incident. Interestingly, the cognitive approach I had taken could not offer a convincing explanation of why this happened, and in fact revealed a significant limitation. Until now I had focused on the ‘thinking individual,’ disregarding her relationships and sociocultural context. Rhonda was a tall, thin African-American girl with a broad smile, often wearing a red bandana wrapped around her head. She was the youngest of five in a closely-knit working-class family. In school, she was one of few black girls bused daily into an affluent school with a primarily white population. Despite being in the minority, she was popular and a strong leader in her peer-group. Teachers described her as very smart and hard working, but sometimes not sensitive to other people’s feelings (Barr, 1998). This information, irrelevant in the cognitive analysis, turned significant and raised a new question:

v How did Rhonda’s experience within the social dynamics of school and society

influence her use of critical inquiry tools?

I understood that the cognitive approach I had used up until then was not well equipped to address this question. I needed another approach that could capture the shaping force of socio-cultural context on critical reflection, without disregarding the active role of the individual. This led me to discourse analysis.


12

Discursive Approach

Discourse theorists propose a different approach to the analysis of people’s reflection and discussion of controversial issues. This tradition assumes that thinking and controversy are relational and situated activities, and therefore, analyzes them within their interpersonal and socio-cultural context, instead of abstracting them from it. Further, theorists consider that thinking and discussion are “function-oriented-productions,” through which individuals seek to accomplish a variety of social goals, not simply intellectual ones (Gee, 2011). For example, people establish relationships of alliance, hostility or subordination, and within these relationships they talk in ways that make language “do social work,” such as establishing bonds, undermining someone’s authority, or reifying an account. The approach I employed in the analysis of interviews focuses on three core discursive processes through which social goals are often accomplished: Narrative, rhetoric, and positioning. People draw upon socio-cultural narratives available in their contexts when they try to make sense of their realities, experiences and knowledge. They don’t construct meaning through lonesome reflection, but invoking, negotiating and transforming these narratives (Haste, 1993). As Haste explains, narratives provide the language with which people think and talk about an issue. They define what elements of an issue are connected or disconnected, what aspects are placed in the foreground or background of an argument, and what is taken for granted, what is considered good or appropriate, or conversely, strange or problematic. Therefore, the meaning of every single position expressed by an individual must be analyzed within the context of these larger discourses. Individuals engage with social narratives through the adoption of rhetorical stances. Discursive theory claims that thinking is primarily a process of arguing with others, or with yourself (Billig, 1987). People adopt different rhetorical stances, depending on whether they seek to expose ideas that others take for granted, challenge the merits of a claim, resist its meaning and implications; or alternatively, advance a counterargument, justify personal beliefs that are disregarded by others, or persuade others of their value. Any statement implies another that is being affirmed or disputed, and we can only understand its meaning if we grasp what it is arguing for or against. Positioning refers to the process of taking on different identity categories, or ascribing them to others. In this way, participants in dialog project themselves and others as being a certain kind of person. The sense of “self” and “other” that they bring to a conversation is constantly negotiated and redefined, redrawing the boundaries between self/other and us/them (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003). The analysis of positioning shows that people relate to one another through the content of their arguments. Who you are is partly defined by what you argue for or against. Likewise, participants relate to the content of arguments through the identities of the speakers, as ideas are signified depending partly on who is claiming or contesting them. The implication of these discursive assumptions is that, as Michael Billig says, the form and content of thinking and arguing are defined primarily by ‘outward dialog’, rather than


13

by the internal structures of the mind (as the cognitive perspective assumes). Socio-cultural context and relational dynamics give shape to ‘outward dialog’ through the narratives invoked by participants, their perception and management of the audience, and the purposes of talk. Drawing upon the discursive categories of narrative, rhetoric and positioning I developed a qualitative semi-inductive rubric that specifies a series of analytic questions that I used to interrogate and code the data in a second round of analysis (See Table 3). Then, in answering these questions, I developed thematic codes that capture the situated meaning of the girls’ thinking and discussion.


14

Table 3: Discursive Processes - Coding Rubric

PROCESS

ANALYTIC QUESTIONS

CODE FOR

Narrative

$ What cultural narratives do

different participants invoke? $ What is fore-grounded / back-

grounded? $ How are narrative themes

connected to each other? $ How are established connections

broken or mitigated?

v Salient themes v Lay social theories v Metaphors v Espoused values v Emotional language

Rhetoric

$ What is the discursive content of

arguments? $ What are participants arguing for

or against? $ What rhetorical stances do

speakers adopt? $ How do thinking, emotions,

arguing and power interplay?

Rhetorical Stances: v Taken-for-granted: Talks about accepted

ideas. Presumes common grounds with audience > No further elaboration.

v Justification: Talks about misunderstood/disapproved ideas. Presumes diverse grounds with audience > qualifies claims.

v Advocacy: Talks about cherished ideas but not commonly shared. Presumes diverse grounds with audience but believes they may come to agree > attempts to persuade.

v Challenge: Talks about ideas that others cherish but he/she disputes. Presumes opposing grounds with audience > poses unsettling questions and counter-claims.

v Resistance: Talks about ideas imposed on him/her. Presumes opposing grounds with audience > resists assumptions, stereotypes and expectations.

Positioning

$ How do speakers position

themselves in relation to others? $ How do speakers perceive that

others position them? $ How do speakers perceive that

others position themselves? $ How the speaker positions others

in relation to themselves? $ Who is ‘us’-‘self’ / ‘them’-‘other’ $ What emotions are present in each

form of positioning?

v Positioning of speaker (self) / by speaker v Positioning of speaker (self) / perceived in

audience v Positioning of audience (other) / perceived in

audience v Positioning of audience (other) / by speaker


15

Discursive Findings

The second round of analysis zoomed-out from the previous focus on the Ostracism Incident to examine Rhonda’s narrative about school and society. Much of this narrative dealt with issues of inequality, discrimination, power and violence, which were quite stable in her experience, and therefore had a remarkable continuity across the three interviews. Below is a summary of my findings regarding the accounts, arguments and explanations advanced by Rhonda.

Organic Meaning of Critical Inquiry

Discursive analysis suggests that Rhonda’s negotiation of her identity and relationships modulated her engagement in critical reflection. Consequently, her account of the Ostracism Incident emerged as an organic expression of her wider social experience. Rhonda talked sharply about her personal life, her school and her social milieu, and constantly took active stances about them. As she reflected on the multiple tensions she navigated daily, Rhonda evoked social narratives about racism, black identity and outlook, and white expectations and stereotypes about black people. Discursive analysis identified three pairs of recurrent themes -Fakeness/Authenticity, Bias/Outspokenness, and Exclusion/Agency - which revealed her perception of interpersonal and social relationships, and delineated the larger context of meaning of her arguments. Drawing upon them, Rhonda positioned herself and others in ways that helped her negotiate her black identity and minority status in a white affluent community in which she was placed in the margins and overburden with a social identity that she could not take-for-granted, as the other girls did. Several anecdotes stress Rhonda’s perception that people are fake. They pretend to care about others more than they really do. In the face of conflict they hide their views to avoid confrontation. Challenging their attitude and resisting their expectations, Rhonda positions herself as authentic. At age 13, she states that Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman inspire her, or “anybody that sticks up for what they believe in.” However, Rhonda knows that what she interprets as being genuine, others read as mean. Looking back in the last interview she explains, “People say I was mean, but I didn’t think I was mean. People say I'm mean now... maybe because I tell people what’s on my mind.” Rhonda also talks profusely about her experience of bias in relationships. On the basis of skin-color –she explains- black people are typified as a source of unease and concern, prone to crime, untamed sexuality, slang-talk, and other unaccepted behaviors. These stereotypes bother her because they prevent others from knowing who she truly is. So, in response, Rhonda positions herself as outspoken. If others won’t listen, she will speak loud and frankly to assure that she gets her point across. Throughout the three interviews she repeats, “I’ll say whatever I want to. I don’t care what other people think about me.” Adding on to the negative stereotypes that pit her against the normative criteria of what is good and desirable, Rhonda offers several examples of incidents of discrimination in the


16

resources and opportunities provided in school and society. Against the risk of exclusion and disempowerment, she presents herself as assertive and willing to do whatever is necessary to hold her place. Already in 8th grade, Rhonda described herself as “an outgoing person who, like, thinks about themself first (sic), … independent, maybe.” Following the first round of cognitive analysis I was struck by the disparity in Rhonda’s critical reflection about self and others; that is, the disparity between a simplistic reflection about her own involvement in the Ostracism Incident and the more sophisticated discussion of the social dynamics that surrounded and affected her. Yet, after the second round of discursive analysis, a remarkable similarity surfaced between Rhonda’s moral claims regarding the conflict with Sue and her perception of relationships in school and society. In her view, Sue tried to keep an appearance of being Jill’s best friend, when in fact she “went behind,” talking about her behind her back. In questioning Sue’s fakeness and claiming that Jill deserved better, Rhonda asserted her own moral regard for authenticity and outspokenness.

Risk and vulnerability of critical inquiry

The analysis of Rhonda’s positioning suggests that her use of the critical inquiry tools is partly informed by her sense of self, her place in relationships, and her worldviews. Rhonda’s experience of living in the margins, together with her sense of authenticity and outspokenness, probably incline her to differentiate her perspective from others’ and to dispute stereotypes and biases. However, when she is called into question, sophisticated critical reflection seems to make her vulnerable and to put her at risk in the negotiation of identities and relationships. Considering the effort that Rhonda had put into resisting and challenging negative stereotypes about black youth, the open recognition of contending perspectives regarding the Ostracism Incident and her participation in it could have appeared to Rhonda as accepting the dominant views and values (e.g. black girls are too loud, too blunt, too insensitive) that placed her in the margins. Coordinating her views with other perspectives might have felt as “giving in” to the stereotypes that threatened to erode her sense of self-worth and her standing in peer relationships. In contrast, not caring about what others had to say about her helped her to resist the weight of expectations that she did not share, and the deprecating effect of the identity labels that others laid on her. Similarly, considering the disempowering context in which she found herself, overlooking the role she played in the dynamics of fear and peer-pressure that surrounded the Ostracism Incident could have seemed necessary to protect one of the few sources of peer recognition that her minority status provided her with. Likewise, if Rhonda’s effectiveness in negotiating her identity within her minority status rested on her commitment to “stay true to herself”, how could she scrutinize the consistency and validity of her own claims and motives in the conflict with Sue, without threatening her sense of authenticity and leadership?


17

These situated views of Rhonda’s use of the critical inquiry tools suggest that her simplistic reflection about the Ostracism Incident may have seemed to her the best she could do to stay safe in a precarious environment. This raised an interesting ethical issue regarding the fairness of judging a participant’s reasoning quality abstracted from the socio-cultural context of discussion. An analysis of level of critical sophistication of arguments must not reduce the explanation to a matter of individual capacity. Instead, a “fair judgment” must rest on an ecological explanation that considers individual reflection situated in context. These finding stress the importance of approaching data with different theoretical lens. While from the cognitive perspective higher critical complexity in thinking and arguing is always regarded as “obviously better”, from the discursive perspective one must consider that the display of critical complexity by specific participants in particular contexts may generate vulnerability in the face of significant social and relational risks. Figure 2 synthesizes and contrasts the assumptions and contributions of cognitive and discursive analytic approaches to critical inquiry and controversy. This comparison highlights what emerged in the process of data analysis, which confronted me with what each approach focuses on, what they seek to explain, and what they accomplish; but also what they ignore, dismiss and conceal.


18

Discussion

The analysis of Rhonda’s interviews through two different theoretical lenses led me to revise my understanding of critical inquiry. First, it made evident that students are not simply individual thinkers, but thinkers-in-relation-to-others. Participants engage in social processes of affirmation, recognition and contestation that intertwine with the intellectual processes of critical thinking and disciplinary learning. Second, it revealed that controversy sets in motion two simultaneous dynamics: The intellectual dynamic consists of cognitive processes of reflection in which participants use the tools of critical inquiry with a shared purpose of constructing reliable knowledge and enhancing their understanding of the issues discussed. The social dynamic consists of discursive processes of negotiation (evoking narratives, adopting rhetorical stances, and positioning) through which participants expose, confront, and redefine the meaning of the cultural discourses, identities and relationships that are put at stake by the controversial issues discussed. Figure 3 offers a revised representation of the processes of critical inquiry, in which the intellectual dynamic unfolds within the social dynamic, framed by it and informing it.


19

Each dynamic poses difficulties and opportunities. Depending on how they are engaged, these dynamics may rival or nurture each other, hindering or boosting the quality and productiveness of critical inquiry and discussion. This has significant implications for research. Cognitive and discursive approaches focus on different but essential aspects of critical inquiry. Either one, used in isolation, is lacking. For instance, one may represent students’ thinking as merely “immature” when the context of controversy is very complicated. As in Rhonda’s case, accounts of conflict that under a cognitive lens may appear as rather simplistic, can reveal the many intricate or sophisticated ways in which a person is thinking while navigating his/her social context. A discursive lens provides a different yet complementary perspective that sheds light on the social and relational opportunities and risks that participants in controversial conversations may face when discussing with critical complexity in certain ecologies. Likewise, one may represent students’ argumentation as exclusively defined by sociocultural processes or context, dismissing the role that the underlying individual cognitive operations play in shaping their accounts and explanations. However, the discursive negotiation of meaning, identity and relationships may be either impoverished or improved, depending on how the intellectual tools are used. A cognitive lens provides a different yet complementary perspective that sheds light on the quality of the arguments exchanged in controversy, and their effect on meaning making and negotiation. The integration of these two lenses affords a more comprehensive understanding of critical inquiry. The cognitive approach is necessary to examine the individual intellectual underpinnings of critical inquiry, and their developmental paths. The discursive approach is necessary to examine the social process of negotiation, and the shaping force that socio-cultural context and relationships exert on students’ thinking and arguing. As Helen Haste points out, this kind of integration recognizes both the individual and the sociocultural processes as objects of inquiry and explanation, and in line with Vigotsky’s theory of social constructivism, contributes to bridge a longstanding divide in psychological and pedagogical research. I argue that it is better not to integrate these approaches into a single blended model for data analysis. The theoretical differences between them make such methodological blending difficult and problematic. However a conceptual and methodological counterpoint between them may prove a better strategy. This counterpoint integrates the two approaches but respects the integrity of each one; it lets them explain what they are meant to explain, while highlighting and mending their respective limitations. Having identified the varying levels of critical complexity that underlies to participants’ arguments, one can then situate them in context to recognize when and why multiple layers of meaning emerge, as well as the varied discursive functions that participants in controversy may pursue. Similarly, having captured the influence of sociocultural context and relationships on participants’ thinking and arguing, we can ‘safely’ abstract their claims in order to examine their critical complexity. In this way, we first construct a separate picture of each dynamic, and then bring them together in a more comprehensive rendition of the intricacies, opportunities and


20

challenges of critical inquiry and discussion about controversial issues and interpersonal or social conflict. Learning Outcomes This case you should help develop a better understanding of:

o The contrasting theoretical assumptions that underlie to cognitive and discursive approaches to the analysis of people’s understanding and discussion of controversial issues.

o The challenges and opportunities of integrating these approaches in a coherent analytic design.

o The importance of integrating different theoretical lenses and methodologies when problems cannot be adequately explained from a single perspective.

Discussion Questions 1) I propose an integration of cognitive and discursive approaches in an analytic counterpoint. What do you think this idea of counterpoint means? Why is it important? [Comprehension] 2) In this case, the cognitive/discursive counterpoint is applied to interviews with one girl reflecting on a bullying incident and other social issues. How can this methodology be useful to analyze other kinds of data, for example in your own research projects, or in assessing students’ work in the classroom? [Transference] 3) Emotions play a fundamental role in critical inquiry, both hindering and enhancing the process and its outcomes. The current description of this methodology does not make this explicit enough. How do you suggest this could be improved? [Extension] 8. Further reading

Bermudez, A. (2012). The Discursive Negotiation of Cultural Narratives and Social Identities in Learning History. En: M, Carretero, & M., Asensio. (Eds.) History Teaching and National Identities. Internacional Review of History Education. Vol. 5. Charlotte, CT: Information Age Publishers.

Bermudez, A. (2008) Thinking Critically Together: The Intellectual and Discursive Dynamics of Controversial Conversations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 315 pages. ISBN: 0549697551

Bermudez, A. (2004) Like Walking on a Tight-rope: Critical Discourses on Self and Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Qualifying Paper.


21

References

Barr, D. (1998). Rhonda: A Case Study of an Eighth-Grader’s Perspectives on Social Issues. Facing History and Ourselves. Unpublished manuscript, Brookline, MA. USA.

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (New ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Gee, J.P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Harré, R., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). The Self and Others: Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political, and Cultural Contexts. Westport, CT.: Praeger.

Haste, H. (1993). Morality, Self and Sociohistorical Context: The Role of Lay Social Theory. The Moral Self. G. G. Noam and T. Wren. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press: 175-208.

Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. New York: Routledge.

Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Perkins, D. (1995). Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for Every Child. Free Press.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London. Sage Publications Inc.

Selman, R. (2003). The Promotion of Social Awareness: Powerful Lessons from the Partnership of Developmental Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Schwandt, T.A. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Third Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Access this paper at: http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/methods-case-studies-2013/n406.xml?rskey=KJCnG6&row=1&hidePageNum&print

Bermudez, A. (2014). Integrating Cognitive and Discursive Approaches in the Analysis of Critical...

Documents

Transcript of Bermudez, A. (2014). Integrating Cognitive and Discursive Approaches in the Analysis of Critical...